Article analysis and discussion

“Reasoning About Social Issues”

Petrenko Anton, PhD
Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30)
E-Mail: [email protected]
AP/MODR1730 D

*

In this lecture, the student will learn how to bring together in an analysis of an extended argument many of the ideas and skills learned in this course. Students will learn how to read actively, analyze and clarify the passage, asses the strength of its arguments, and present a written critique.
Lecture Objectives

Analyze and portray basic logical structure
Clarify meaning of key terms and phrases
Assess specific argument for soundness and cogency
Assess overall acceptability of the passage
Develop a written critique

*

Basic Steps in Analysis

Read, annotate, and clarify the passage

Step 1:
Portray the basic argument structure
Step 2:
Assess the
arguments
Step 3:
Present your analysis

Step 4:
Identify purpose and conclusion
Annotate passage
Clarify key concepts and claims

Identify main argument
Identify sub-arguments
Supply missing premises

Assess specific arguments (for each)
a) Assess validity for deductive arg.
b) Assess strength for inductive arg.
c) Assess strength for abductive arg.
e) Identify fallacies
Assess truth of claims
a) empirical; conceptual; normative
b) challenge presupposition
c) provide counterexamples
Assess overall argument (together)
Put together an overall presentation
Results:
1.1 Annotation (1-2 pages)
1.2 Statement of topic; issue; position
1.3 Notes (clarification)
1.4 Conceptual analysis (a page)
1.5 Synopsis

Results (1-2 pages):
2.1 Arrow diagram of the argument
missing premises identified

2.2 Diagram with arg. lines named
Results:
3.1 Arg. analysis includes (1-4 pages). For each sub-argument include:
a) Tr. and Venn test if deduct. arg.
b) Assessment if inductive arg.
c) Assessment if abductive arg.
d) Asses truth of claims
e) Challenges claims
Results:
1-2 Page discussion of the passage with presentation of your assessment in your own words (no diagrams or venns)

*

The government’s gun registration program has failed. It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous rampages in Montreal. All three crimes were committed by individuals using legally acquired weapons. More important, recent statistics show that while the incidence of crime—homicides, robbery—involving guns has decreased over the past ten years in the United States, it has increased in Canada. In the United States, not only is there no gun registry, but citizens are actually being encouraged to carry guns. Twenty-six states have recently passed laws allowing citizens to carry handguns and have made it easier for them to get handgun licences.

Not only has the gun registry program failed; it has had the effect of a steamroller crushing a butterfly. The gun registry program has two main functions: (1) to decrease the use of guns for criminal activity, and (2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to guns. The registry has had no effect on either of these.

Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often either stolen from individuals who have registered their guns or with guns illegally imported from the United States. A gun registry doesn’t address that problem. Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t. In fact, a gun registry can actually facilitate criminals getting guns because it tells the criminals who has the guns and from where they can be stolen.

The gun registry, by itself, does not reduce the number of domestic murders. The number is, first of all, already low. And if someone is going to kill a spouse or other family member, that person will use whatever is available. If guns aren’t available, he or she will use knives or clubs. Registering handguns will not change that.

Nor will it stop the killing of police officers. Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. And when they have been, the guns have either been legally acquired, which the gun registry does nothing to prevent, or they have been illegal, which the gun registry also does nothing to prevent.

The gun registry is simply not effective. It should be eliminated.
Gun registry (GR) failed. a) It did not stop crimes done with legal guns (Montreal); b) it did not prevent increase in crime (US vs. Canada).
Moreover: GR failed in two main functions: 1) decrease use of guns in crime, 2) reduce murders due to easy access to guns.
Most crimes are done with illegal guns (stolen or smuggled). GR does not address this (worse: tells criminals where to steal guns.)

GR does not reduce domestic murders:1) murders are low; 2) people who want to kill family, will find the weapons.
GR will not stop killing of police: 1) few are killed with guns; 2) they were either legal or stolen.
C: GR should be eliminated

1.1 Annotation

*

1.3 Clarification Notes
“It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous rampages in Montreal.” Note: This includes a presupposition that gun registry is supposed to eliminate all crimes rather than decrease them. This is questionable.

4) “Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t.” Note: There seem to be an implied normative claim that it is a bad thing if law-abiding citizens don’t get guns. The claim is neither stated nor defended anywhere.
5) “The number is, first of all, already low.” Note: Vague—how low is “low”?
6) “Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. “ Note: Vague—how few is “few”?
Topic: Gun Registry
Issue: Should guns registry be eliminated?
Position: GR is ineffective; it should be eliminated.
1.2 Statement of Topic and Position
“(2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to guns.”

Note: The word “domestic” is semantically ambiguous : “done at home” or “within
the country”?
3) “Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often
either stolen. Note: Vague–how often is “often”? How many is most (total number)?

*

1.5 Synopsis

“Gun registry should be eliminated because it failed and it is ineffective in its function. First, it failed because it does not prevent crime with legal guns or have effect on crime rate. Second, it is ineffective in reducing guns for use in crime because often such guns are acquired illegally, which it does not address. And it is ineffective in reducing domestic murders because such people will always find other weapons. Finally, it has no effect on crimes against the police since they are done either with legal guns or illegal guns.
1.4 No Conceptual Analysis

*

2.1 Argument Structure
8. The gun registry is failed and ineffective.
1. GR should be eliminated
3. GR fails to prevent crimes with legal guns.
2. Gun Registry failed
5.GR has no effect on crime rate (implied).
7. US has no registry, but crime is decreasing.
6. Canada has registry, but crime is increasing
4. GR did not prevent three rampages with legal guns.
+
11. If GR does not decrees guns for use in crime and reduce domestic murders, then it is ineffective (implied)
13. Most crimes use stolen or smuggled guns
14. GR does not prevent stealing or smuggling of guns
12. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes
15. GR does not reduce domestic murders
10. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes and reduce domestic murders
17. People who want to kill family, will find the weapons
16. Domestic murders are low
+
+
+
9. Ineffective or failed programs should be eliminated (implied)
+

*

2.2 Argument Structure
8
1
3
2
5 (implied)
7
6
4
+
11
13
14
12
15
10
17
16
+
+
+
9 (implied)
+

Failure
Argument
Ineffective Argument

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
3
2
4
3. GR fails to prevent crimes with legal guns.
4. GR failed to prevent three rampages with legal guns
8
The argument line that argues that GR failed ( 2) has two independent arguments that support it (3 and 5).
Summarise: Let’s consider premise 3 first: It claims that GR failed because it failed to prevent crimes with legal weapons. And it supports this by pointing out to three cases of rampages with legal guns.

Assess strength: This argument is an inductive generalization. The argument is weak because its sample is very small (three crimes); it is not representative (rampages and college shootings in Montreal); and observations are not systematic.
Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR functioning at the time of the rampages? Were they legal guns? Not have enough information (have to assume).
Challenge Claims: Does the argument make a presupposition that GR must prevent all crimes with legal guns? GR is supposed to reduce crimes, not eliminate them.

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
2
5 (implied)
7
6
+
5.GR has no effect on crime rate (implied).
6. Canada has registry, but crime is increasing
8
The argument line that argues that GR failed ( 2) has two independent arguments that support it (3 and 5). Now, let’s consider premise 5:
Summarise: The argument claims that GR fails by implying that it has no effect on the crime rate. It is supported by the statistics for Canada and US showing that US without registry has decrease in crimes while Canada has an increase.

Assess strength: This is a causal argument, denying a causal connection. The argument is weak because it fails to take into account other factors that contribute to crime rates. It is possible that crime rate would be much higher in Canada without GR and much lower in US with GR. This would be strong if other variables were controlled.
Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR in Canada functioning during periods cited? We do not have enough information to assess the truth.
Challenge Claims: No claims to challenge here.
7. US has no registry, but crime is decreasing.

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
The Failure Argument is quite weak. It includes a weak inductive generalization and a weak causal argument.
We have little information to check the truth of the claims themselves. We have to rely on the author to provide true claims, but without references to reliable sources makes the case weaker.
3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument

The argument line that GR is ineffective basically defines what effectiveness is and argues that GR fails to live up to these conditions.

The argument line includes a number of deductive arguments at the beginning and some inductive arguments at the top.

Lets look at the first step in the argument sub-conclusion 8.
8
11
13
14
12

15
10
17
16
+

+

+

3
2
5 (implied)
7
6
4

+

8

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument

Lets look at the first step in the argument sub-conclusion 8.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR is ineffective because it does not decrease guns for use in crimes and reduce domestic murders. The argument is deductive (Modus ponens) but we can translate it into categorical logic
11. All things that don’t reduce domestic murders or guns are ineffective things
10. All GR are things that don’t reduce domestic murders or guns …
8. All GR are ineffective things.

Assess validity/strength: This deductive argument is valid. The question is whether it is sound. Are the claims true?
Assess Claims: We have to trust the author that registry has two functions which define whether it is effective (Pr. 11) The main question is whether 10 is true, for this we have to check how this premise is supported.
8
11
10

+
Ineffective things
I
gun registry
G
Things that don’t reduce…
B

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument

How is premise 10 supported?

Premise 10 is basically a joining of two conclusions (premises 12 and 15). We could check the validity of joining, but this is not necessary (this is conjunction inference in propositional logic). Instead, lets look at the argument for premise 12.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes because most crimes are made with stolen or smuggled guns and GR does not prevent that.
13
14
12
15
+
+
10
13. Most crimes use stolen or smuggled guns
14. GR does not prevent stealing or smuggling of guns
12. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes

Assess validity/strength: This argument can be put into a categorical form if we add extra implied premises. But even now it is clear that it is invalid. Premise 13 says that only some crimes are done with stolen guns. So, even if GR did not prevent illegal guns, it does not follow that it does not decrease availability of legal guns for use in crimes. But this is what the conclusion states. Invalid.
Assess Claims: The claim 13 is too vague (how many are most)? Furthermore, no support is given for premise 14. By reducing guns in general and guns in unreliable hands, GR might reduce the number of guns that are likely to be stolen.

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument

Summarise: The argument claims that GR does not reduce domestic murders because they are already low and people will always find a weapon of opportunity.
16. Domestic murders are low
17. People who want to kill family, will find the weapons
15. GR does not reduce domestic murders

12
15
10
17
16
+
Premise 10 is supported with two premises, 12 and 15. We have determined that premise 12, if stated in unqualified form (i.e. GR does not reduce any guns for crimes) is false. So the argument fails, but we should also look at premise 15.
Assess validity/strength: This is an inductive argument (premises are not linked). The basis for drawing the conclusion is unclear. Premise 16 appears irrelevant. Premise 17 is a general unsupported claim (empirical prediction). The argument is very weak.
Assess/Challenge Claims: Claim 16 is too vague and irrelevant to the conclusion—the fact that domestic crimes are low does not mean they can’t or should not be reduced. No evidence (systematic or anecdotal) is cited in support of premise17: even is some people would find weapons of opportunity, without easily available guns some might not. (Hasty Generalization).

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument

Overall, the Inefficiency Argument is weak.
The main problems are related to the premises 12 and 15, which are supposed to lead to the conclusion (10) that GR does not reduce guns available for crimes or reduce domestic murders.
Claim 12 is derived from an invalid argument—even if GR does not reduce illegal guns, it does not mean it can’t prevent crimes with legal guns. Moreover, no evidence is given to show that GR does not reduce availability of guns for theft.
Claim 15 is largely unsupported. The main problem is with premise 17. It appears to be a hasty generalization without clear sample. Claim 16 is irrelevant.
3.1 Argument Analysis: Overall Argument

The overall argument is weak. The argument that GR fails is based on hasty generalization and weak causal argument. The argument that GR is ineffective is based on an invalid argument and on another hasty generalization.

Finally, even if the arguments were strong, the conclusion that guns registry should be eliminated does not follow. No argument had been provided to show that it can’t be fixed (Challenging claim 9: Ineffective or failed programs should be eliminated)
8
11
13
14
12

15
10
17
16
+

+

+

*